If I was asked this question 2-3 years ago, I would have said Keynesian/Neo-Keynesian, because it seemed the most attractive way to approach economic and political problems . But, now that I actually know a bit more about Economics and Political Philosophy, my eyes have been opened. Thus, I must say 'Austrian'.

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
I would say the Austrians are in methodology are very different to the mainstream and in the policies they promote.

There are just large parts of what was originally Austrian thought that is now taken as given across all the schools.

That's my point. Most of what is considered 'Austrian' can be integrated quite easily into mainstream economic discourse. Adopting the Austrian methodology (which I think is the correct one) doesn't have any particularly massive implications for a mainstream economist either. It just involves a slight refocus as far as what you think an economist should be doing and how they should do it.

(Original post by D.R.E)
Adopting the Austrian methodology (which I think is the correct one) doesn't have any particularly massive implications for a mainstream economist either. It just involves a slight refocus as far as what you think an economist should be doing and how they should do it.

I think that is a pretty massive change.

From modelling the economy with differential equations and using that really pure science of econometrics to deductive thinking.

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
I think that is a pretty massive change.

From modelling the economy with differential equations and using that really pure science of econometrics to deductive thinking.

Yes, but that's only in relation to macro, and that would be an extremely good thing. Besides, criticism of that methodology is not just restricted to the Austrian school. It is a logical problem that the economists need to get rid of as soon as possible.

(Original post by D.R.E)
Yes, but that's only in relation to macro, and that would be an extremely good thing. Besides, criticism of that methodology is not just restricted to the Austrian school. It is a logical problem that the economists need to get rid of as soon as possible.

They still use fancy maths and econometrics within a microeconomics context.

I agree on the aggregation problem though, we would be better off not thinking about things like aggregate demand and the like.

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
They still use fancy maths and econometrics within a microeconomics context.

I agree on the aggregation problem though, we would be better off not thinking about things like aggregate demand and the like.

Austrians don't have a problem with equations. They just believe that there should be an awareness that they are simplifications of complex phenomena and that they should not be treated as the be-all-and-end-all of economics.

I recognise that I'm totally unable to make an educated judgement here, but at present I lean towards Keynesian economics on the grounds of the more pragmatic and less ideological nature of its policies.

(Original post by JacobW)
I recognise that I'm totally unable to make an educated judgement here, but at present I lean towards Keynesian economics on the grounds of the more pragmatic and less ideological nature of its policies.

So you don't think Keynesianism has been hijacked by the do gooders on the left to justify spending money on social justice and what not? And then to also be able to claim at the same time it is helping the economy?

(Original post by JacobW)
I recognise that I'm totally unable to make an educated judgement here, but at present I lean towards Keynesian economics on the grounds of the more pragmatic and less ideological nature of its policies.

What an extremely strange thing to say. Rather than leaning towards a system you believe to be conceptually accurate, you go for the one than gives you policies that you like? Strange.

(Original post by D.R.E)
What an extremely strange thing to say. Rather than leaning towards a system you believe to be conceptually accurate, you go for the one than gives you policies that you like? Strange.

You've misinterpreted my comment. I'm inclined to favour Keynesian economics not because I have some personal love of the policies it justifies, but because the Austrian, Chicago, or Marxian schools seem to rely on philosophical assumptions or beliefs about human nature I don't agree with, or else entail radical reform of a I kind I dislike for reasons that lie outside economics. For instance, I don't think praxeology is much use because you'd need a premise so strong and universal from which to deduce anything significant that the empirical justification required would render deduction redundant; I don't like Marxian economics because it relies on a philosophy that claims a huge amount of knowledge of subjects I don't believe we're able to understand. And I'm a dismal, old-fashioned conservative, so I'm deeply suspicious of anything radical.

I could be completely wrong of course: like I say, I realy don't know.

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
So you don't think Keynesianism has been hijacked by the do gooders on the left to justify spending money on social justice and what not? And then to also be able to claim at the same time it is helping the economy?

To an extent, but I think you exagerate the left's intellectual dishonesty. Either way, what makes you think I'm averse to a bit of socialism?

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Which school of thought do you think most appropriately explains the economy generally?

I assume you meant which econ school best explains how the economy functions in practice as opposed to in theory. But it's hard to tell from your wording.
I don't follow any school dogmatically, but if I have to choose one it'd be the Austrian school (even though the term no longer has substantive meaning.) In general though I'm very Libertarian/Austrian/Anarcho-Capitalist minded or "socially liberal, fiscally conservative."

But each school has interesting viewpoints and theories that they bring to the table. There are bits and pieces of all of them that I agree with, even Marxist ideologies.

(Original post by JacobW)
To an extent, but I think you exaggerate the left's intellectual dishonesty. Either way, what makes you think I'm averse to a bit of socialism?

I think the left can be very dishonest.

A good example is the great lie of national insurance. Bundling up a regressive taxation scheme with a payment system that favours the rich and selling it as if it were one scheme. Or take the national minimum wage. A law that claims to be for the poor but in practice hurts the poor the most. And the real purpose being protecting unions from competition.

I am more of a post Keynesian anyway, but the left is definitely full of lies.

(Original post by HellYeahImAmerican)
I assume you meant which econ school best explains how the economy functions in practice as opposed to in theory. But it's hard to tell from your wording.
I don't follow any school dogmatically, but if I have to choose one it'd be the Austrian school (even though the term no longer has substantive meaning.) In general though I'm very Libertarian/Austrian/Anarcho-Capitalist minded or "socially liberal, fiscally conservative."

But each school has interesting viewpoints and theories that they bring to the table. There are bits and pieces of all of them that I agree with, even Marxist ideologies.